Yemen problem is a Donor Dependencies country. Hypothesis LED countries receive a substantial amount of foreign aid. The hypothesis is that this aid is not always given with good intention. Foreign countries that donate money do so in order to influence the LED country in their interest. Reasons for this Hypothesis Foreign countries use the dependency on donor aid in several ways. One standard method is tied aid, i.e., money that is given under the condition that it be spent on products from the donor country [8]. Another one is an indirect political pressure on the LED country to make political decisions in the interest of the donor country. Finally, the money is not always donated in a way that supports sustainable progress in the recipient country. It is often donated to causes that harm the environment, to military equipment, or to counter-effective subsidies Effects By influencing the LED country, the donor country advances its own interests, and disregards the interests of the recipient country. If, e.g., all aid money has to be spent on products or services from the donor country, then the recipient country can suffocate its own local competitors. As Thomas Sankara remarked, he who feeds you, controls you. We may argue that the donor country has the right to decide what shall happen with its money. If the LED country does not accept the conditions imposed by the donor country, it can always decide to walk off. Then, however, it will most likely remain poor, and need foreign aid even more ardently. Recipient countries do not always support the donor country politically as one might think (and some might wish). The conservative Heritage Foundation laments that 95% of US aid recipient countries voted against the US in UNO decisions in the years 2000-2010 [10]. Development aid by itself is also a controversial issue. In addition to its potentially harmful influence, there is always the danger that it mainly enriches the governing class, and fuels corruption. There is always the danger that the largest portion of the money goes where it is not intended to go (>Elite). The OECD reckons that LED countries received a total of 120 billion US dollars in 2009 [15]. To assess that quantity, let us conduct a thought experiment. Let us assume that this money were handed out directly to the population. Statistically speaking, 120 billion US dollars is roughly 25 dollars per LED country inhabitant per year. The poorest people in these countries have to live on less than 2 dollars a day. If we triple that to 6 dollars a day, then the aid money could nourish roughly 1 in 100 poor people for a year. Yet, this would mainly maintain the status quo without helping the country to fight its poverty on long-term. Furthermore, as of now, only a tiny percentage of the money reaches the people at all .
Posted on: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 15:56:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015